REALLY Ancient History

[Henry Hub]

Grips and handles are more of a topic for patents this year. Even then there’s only 4 and I’ve omitted half of them as they are clearly intended for cricket bats and hockey sticks, rather than tennis rackets.

This is an interesting one though. It may look like a mediaeval mace but this is supposed to be an improved grip for rackets. It consists of a sleeve with various protuberances of rubber, papier maché, cork or other material, the whole arrangement being slotted onto the handle.

I am getting blisters just looking at it.

https://imgur.com/a/5Jj2i6E

Finally, there is this patent for a means of applying rubber overgrips to handles helically (a word I had never encountered until now).

https://imgur.com/a/6Z0P7zh

Rubber overgrips have been about since at least 1879 (the below being from The Field of 3 May 1879):

https://imgur.com/a/f0tIgEq

But the overgrip has always been in the form of a tube, like you’d apply to a cricket bat handle. This is an example from an 1889 Wright & Ditson brochure:

https://imgur.com/a/uv8PtMQ

If I am reading the 1893 patent correctly (by no means a certainty), the key difference here is that the rubber is cut such that it can be wound onto the handle like a modern overgrip. The ends are secured by cord or wire.

 

[Casey 1988]

Proving yet again that some people have more money than sense, one JA Baker burns an application fee on this design.

https://imgur.com/a/mWbBk6S

Aimed squarely at latter day court jesters (ho ho), this curiosity involves a double strung racket (cf the “Surface-Strung” racket and the Blackburne) with jingles slotted in between the layers.

I presume that this was intended as a child’s toy rather than a bold foray into the sphere of high performance sports tambourines.

Maybe a training tool like a bunch of what Toalson sells/designs?

 

[Sanglier]

Aimed squarely at latter day court jesters (ho ho), this curiosity involves a double strung racket (cf the “Surface-Strung” racket and the Blackburne) with jingles slotted in between the layers.

I presume that this was intended as a child’s toy rather than a bold foray into the sphere of high performance sports tambourines.

It's a highly advanced forerunner of the PWS, which doubles as a frame vibration dampener (the kinetic energy that goes into ringing the jingles is absorbed from the frame), and triples as an assault device targeting the opponent's hearing to render him/her mad.

A Screwy Clanking Acoustic Mass Peripheral System. SCAMPS.

 

[Casey 1988]

It's a highly advanced forerunner of the PWS, which doubles as a frame vibration dampener (the kinetic energy that goes into ringing the jingles is absorbed from the frame), and triples as an assault device targeting the opponent's hearing to render him/her mad.

A Screwy Clanking Acoustic Mass Peripheral System. SCAMPS.

I thought it was the forerunner to the Kinetic system that ProKennex uses, both make sound and both have something shifting inside the model.

 

[Henry Hub]

It's a highly advanced forerunner of the PWS, which doubles as a frame vibration dampener (the kinetic energy that goes into ringing the jingles is absorbed from the frame), and triples as an assault device targeting the opponent's hearing to render him/her mad.

A Screwy Clanking Acoustic Mass Peripheral System. SCAMPS.

If only we were in Victorian London I would swoop in to counter-patent the revolutionary Tennis-elbow Insulating Neo-Nicks (anticipating Stevie) Idiophonic Tambourine Unsettlorama System
(TINNITUS).

 

[Henry Hub]

Right, where are we with rackets?

Well, the first thing to note are the absent friends. Though they are probably still retailing tennis equipment, we no longer see any adverts from Feltham, Lillywhite,
Gradidge, Jaques and Frank Bryan. Although Lunn is still alive and kicking, as we will see below it no longer appears to be advertising its own rackets.

Ayres thankfully keeps funding its marketing team, meaning we see a few ads from the Aldersgate Street firm in 1893. However, they only give them breadcrumbs to work with, the same rackets fronting their publicity campaign as have been trotted out over the past umpteen years. Pro Staff and Maxply account managers probably nod along knowingly.

https://imgur.com/a/A8tBb0e

The banner ad for the year as far as rackets are concerned is this one. Though they don’t go wild for the imagery like in Slazenger’s ads (massive on the Mephistopheles), Ayres does a good job on clearly depicting his premium rackets.

What he doesn’t do is to take off the sodding collars - that “edit” button is looking ever more tempting to expunge my embarrassing mid-1880s hot take.

Anyway, all of these should be familiar by now. We have the “Cane Spliced Handle” with a cane strip extending up through the handle to the top of the wedge and a bit of a fantail. There’s the good old “Champion”, the sturdy workhorse of the Ayres line, and the “Julian Marshall” with its checkered handle and smaller head. Finally, we have the “FH Ayres” that is trending towards its late-90s oval head.

 

[Henry Hub]

The “Champion” and “FH Ayres” are the two of the above-named rackets (along with the “Central Strung”) that have the longest shelf-life at 111 Aldersgate Street.

They feature in this April ad, which is chiefly notable for the testimony from Wilfred Baddeley about the rackets Ayres has provided him.

This testimony is pretty much Exhibit A in support of my assertion that Ayres rackets were used to win the Wimbledon men’s singles championship in 1891 and 1892 - Ayres doesn’t go in for the kind of title triumphalism of which their Cannon Street rivals are so fond (more’s the pity).

https://imgur.com/a/ipBD9Yx

 

[Henry Hub]

The last thing out of the Ayres workshops this year is the “Perfect” scorer. And it is quite the piece of work.

Putting aside for the moment that it would be a right hassle if you were playing a social mix-in to have to engrave your next opponent’s name into a fresh slat of balsa wood every rotation, how good would this look on a tennis court compared to those modern plastic scoring devices?

https://imgur.com/a/s5nyLd6

https://imgur.com/a/Y4Aoc1Z

 

[Henry Hub]

Deverell Brothers of Cheapside are the sellers of the “Durable” and “Europa” rackets that we have seen over the past half a dozen years or so. We don’t get to see any illustrated ads from them this year but, given the distinct lack of evolution in either of those rackets over the years, that’s no great loss.

Instead, we get this little potted history of the company. It was founded in the first half of the 1800s as Meade & Deverell before Mr Meade was ousted by a hostile takeover courtesy of the Grim Reaper, leaving the Deverells to run the business.

The firm is located on Cheapside, a street running between Bank and St Paul’s Cathedral in the heart of the City of London.

As previously noted, there were clusters of London racket manufacturers based in the West End and the City. Deverell are in the latter location, catering for City workers popping out to the shops before commuting home from the stations at Cannon Street, London Bridge, Fenchurch Street or Liverpool Street.

Deverells’ premises can be seen on slide 8 of the maps below.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/really-ancient-history.246089/post-17917565

Their building is long gone, with the One New Change shopping centre now standing on the site.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

https://imgur.com/a/ebx6MLu

The shoulders of the “Durable” are reinforced with binding, a measure that was used way back by Bartlett on his “Waterloo” racket but even in the mid-1880s was reported as a common sight on top players’ frames.

The Deverells stand behind the integrity of the “Durable”’s construction, warranting the racket for a full year. To that end, they stick the year of construction or maybe sale onto the frame of each racket. If only all 19th century manufacturers had adopted the same approach, this would have put an end to the Sherlock-style sleuthing involved in trying to date these old rackets.

 

[Henry Hub]

John Holden is still based beside Lord’s at 68 St John’s Wood Road (also featuring on one of the maps above). His racket-making business continues on into the 20th century. At some point along this path, Holden actually gives us a glimpse at what his rackets look like…

https://imgur.com/a/qQbW08g

The jewel in Gardiner’s crown is the “Best”. This racket costs 30s, approaching the list price of Tate’s output. It still seems to have a market though, leading the company’s adverts for 1893.

https://imgur.com/a/5CtiS2f

 

[Henry Hub]

But that’s not all for the Hoddesdon firm.

No, for some reason, Gardiner’s “Conqueror” (fluted handle) is the only racket depicted in Lunn’s adverts in Pastime this year.

https://imgur.com/a/UgHdr4A

So what is going on here? I haven’t found a single Lunn’s advert for his own rackets after 1892 so perhaps the firm had transformed into a more general sports retailer by this point? Or perhaps my sample size is just too small and Lunn’s kept manufacturing their own range and advertising in other publications?

 

[Arrie]

But that’s not all for the Hoddesdon firm.

No, for some reason, Gardiner’s “Conqueror” (fluted handle) is the only racket depicted in Lunn’s adverts in Pastime this year.

https://imgur.com/a/UgHdr4A

So what is going on here? I haven’t found a single Lunn’s advert for his own rackets after 1892 so perhaps the firm had transformed into a more general sports retailer by this point? Or perhaps my sample size is just too small and Lunn’s kept manufacturing their own range and advertising in other publications?

love to see this 1893 brochure.

 

[Henry Hub]

I have not managed to track down any UK ads in 1893 from those venerable racket-makers, Jefferies. However, the sub-continent comes to the rescue.

These ads from Lahore and Kolkata papers include rackets from Jefferies and Ayres. There’s also a couple of intriguing new models among the more familiar names.

https://imgur.com/a/pR9864k

To take Ayres first, we are by now very familiar with the “Triple Handled” racket, which has been a staple of their range for almost 10 years and seems to have been particularly popular in India. This may explain why an example of this racket was described as an Indian-made racket on “Antiques Roadshow” last year.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/antiques-roadshow-valuations.764399/post-17916574

Anyway, the main point here is that a “Triple Handle Champion” model is advertised here as a modded version of the standard “Champion” (the regular one is pictured in their ad above), so there seems to be regional demand for that handle style on other models. A cork handled variant of the “Champion” is also touted.

The Ayres racket we haven’t previously seen is the “Lansdowne”. I have no idea what this looked like but, as the cheapest on the line advertised above, I suspect it is a pretty bog standard frame with lower quality stringing. I also presume that it was named after the Dublin tennis club to which Pim and Stoker belonged rather than J. Parmly Paret’s invented name for an inside out forehand:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/really-ancient-history.246089/post-18448937

Another unfamiliar Ayres model crops up the second ad, namely the “Superior”. Again, it’s at the cheaper end of the range so I can’t imagine there’s anything special about it.

 

[Henry Hub]

Back to Jefferies. Some of the Woolwich outfit’s rackets are also listed. The “Dod” is the model advertised by both Jefferies and Wisden with its ultradense stringing pattern (“Over 1200 squares”).

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/really-ancient-history.246089/post-17996761

There are three rackets listed that I haven’t seen elsewhere (though I haven’t checked Kuebler, come to think of it). They are the “Enterprise” at 16 rupees, the “Angelic” at (I think) 15 rupees and the “Japonica” at just over 14 rupees. I would love to know what sets each of these frames apart.

The USP of Fortnam’s (Fortnam, Forrester & Co) “Ivorine Handle Presentation” racket in contrast is pretty self-evident. At 18 rupees, it is the most expensive racket on that list.

 

[Henry Hub]

love to see this 1893 brochure.

That’s all I have I’m afraid - it’s just a single ad rather than a catalogue. As the subject matter expert on all things Lunn, what are your views on this? Do you have later adverts where they publicise their own rackets?

 

[Henry Hub]

Prosser’s unyielding loyalty to a single advertising strategy continues into 1893, the firm still pushing the fantail “Dorothy” (named after the firm’s factory) and “Springlight” (with the strip of cane between the wedge and the frame.

https://imgur.com/a/K859Sfx

On a roll after their article on the Deverell Brothers, “Illustrated London” publish an interesting behind the scenes account of the company and its history.

https://imgur.com/a/Ge4IuOA

On a roll after their article on the Deverell Brothers, “Illustrated London” publish an interesting behind the scenes account of the company and its history.

The veracity of some of their claims, most notably that Prosser was the OEM for Wingfield’s Sphairistike rackets, is rather undermined by their suggestion that Prosser supplied rackets to such lawn tennis clubs as the Belvedere on Pentonville Road, Prince's Racquet Club and Queen’s Racquet Club. The slight issue with this is that all of the aforementioned are rackets, rather than lawn tennis clubs…

Still, the account of the quality control process does sound consistent with other reports I’ve seen and the three Prossers are names that feature repeatedly on tennis patents over the years.

 

[Henry Hub]

Before we come to Ralph’s output for the year, let’s briefly touch on a couple of manufacturers we only see in 1893.

The first is Shaw and Shrewsbury. This Nottingham sporting firm mainly specialises in cricket paraphernalia (hence this ad appearing in “Cricket” magazine). However, it would also seem that it goes in for some properly bonkers rackets. The close-up of the rackets in the second slide is hopefully helpful for those who have eyesight as poor as my mole-like vision.

https://imgur.com/a/QI5xT0q

The racket on the left seems perfectly unremarkable, other than that the buttcap looks so sharp that one hopes Oddjob never gets his hands on it.

The racket on the right is a little confounding. Naturally, we have a big fat double ply structure - almost certainly ash and cane. However, what is going on with those strings? It looks a little like the description of the Ayres “Special” that has the central main strings threaded through a brass tongue embedded in the wedge. The mains go from diagonal out of the wedge fixture to vertical once they hit the first cross. Any views from the racket engineers on this one?

 

[Arrie]

That’s all I have I’m afraid - it’s just a single ad rather than a catalogue. As the subject matter expert on all things Lunn, what are your views on this? Do you have later adverts where they publicise their own rackets?

I have no later info. all hope im your hands...

 

[Grafil Injection]

Before we come to Ralph’s output for the year, let’s briefly touch on a couple of manufacturers we only see in 1893.

The first is Shaw and Shrewsbury. This Nottingham sporting firm mainly specialises in cricket paraphernalia (hence this ad appearing in “Cricket” magazine). However, it would also seem that it goes in for some properly bonkers rackets. The close-up of the rackets in the second slide is hopefully helpful for those who have eyesight as poor as my mole-like vision.

https://imgur.com/a/QI5xT0q

The racket on the left seems perfectly unremarkable, other than that the buttcap looks so sharp that one hopes Oddjob never gets his hands on it.

The racket on the right is a little confounding. Naturally, we have a big fat double ply structure - almost certainly ash and cane. However, what is going on with those strings? It looks a little like the description of the Ayres “Special” that has the central main strings threaded through a brass tongue embedded in the wedge. The mains go from diagonal out of the wedge fixture to vertical once they hit the first cross. Any views from the racket engineers on this one?

No idea how it works, but I like the look of that 'fan-string' model. I guess it must be a metal grid across the bottom, as a wood that thin would surely not be strong enough? Has the same flattish top to the Spin Hipo, so I fancy it would be great for serving too. Interesting that the latter came out about 100 years later!

 

[Henry Hub]

No idea how it works, but I like the look of that 'fan-string' model. I guess it must be a metal grid across the bottom, as a wood that thin would surely not be strong enough? Has the same flattish top to the Spin Hipo, so I fancy it would be great for serving too. Interesting that the latter came out about 100 years later!

Funnily enough, I went straight for Sp.In rackets on Google images when I saw this too!

 

[Henry Hub]

Just in case what was missing from your life was an account of how tennis rackets were made in 1893 by the only manufacturer in the west of England, well I have tremendous news.

https://imgur.com/a/aFGNQOu

Privately, I do have my doubts that Bentley is the only racket-maker west of Bristol but who am I to argue with the gospel that is the Torquay Times and South Devon Advertiser?

 

[Henry Hub]

For a change, Slazenger isn’t going wildly over the top on its advertising this year and, frankly, more’s the pity.

Now, of course, they still splash a great big drawing of their Demon design across most of their ads but that’s about it - the very model of restraint by Ralph’s usual standards. I do wonder whether Adam Driver’s great-great-grandfather did a spot of modelling for the Demon…

Most of the ads are far more preoccupied with the new “Association” netposts than rackets, though the “Demon” and the “Slazenger” still get shoehorned in. As previously noted, 1880s tennis implement reviews considered balls and netposts as being infinitely more important to the development of the game than rackets.

https://imgur.com/a/mHKhxzS

Incidentally, the claim that all the leading players use the “Slazenger” might be generally accurate in March 1893 (though the nose of one Wilfred Baddeley might be quite understandably disjointed by this) but it is certainly no longer the case by summer.

At some point during 1893, the collaboration between Ralph’s racket design team and EG Meers results in the fabrication and launch of probably the greatest European racket of the 1890s - the eponymous EGM.

We will soon see the rogues’ gallery of the men wielding this new stick at Wimbledon 1893 - and it is quite a list - but, for whatever reason, there doesn’t seem to be any adverts for the EGM in 1893.

Slazenger’s do make up for lost time in future years, however. This is a bit of a spoiler but just take a look at the haul of titles won by this racket in the 1890s:

https://imgur.com/a/ZAyZOz8

Do also note that the 1899 US National Championship was scooped up by this or another Slazenger’s racket in the able hands of Malcolm Whitman.

 

[Grafil Injection]

For a change, Slazenger isn’t going wildly over the top on its advertising this year and, frankly, more’s the pity.

Now, of course, they still splash a great big drawing of their Demon design across most of their ads but that’s about it - the very model of restraint by Ralph’s usual standards. I do wonder whether Adam Driver’s great-great-grandfather did a spot of modelling for the Demon…

Most of the ads are far more preoccupied with the new “Association” netposts than rackets, though the “Demon” and the “Slazenger” still get shoehorned in. As previously noted, 1880s tennis implement reviews considered balls and netposts as being infinitely more important to the development of the game than rackets.

https://imgur.com/a/mHKhxzS

Incidentally, the claim that all the leading players use the “Slazenger” might be generally accurate in March 1893 (though the nose of one Wilfred Baddeley might be quite understandably disjointed by this) but it is certainly no longer the case by summer.

At some point during 1893, the collaboration between Ralph’s racket design team and EG Meers results in the fabrication and launch of probably the greatest European racket of the 1890s - the eponymous EGM.

We will soon see the rogues’ gallery of the men wielding this new stick at Wimbledon 1893 - and it is quite a list - but, for whatever reason, there doesn’t seem to be any adverts for the EGM in 1893.

Slazenger’s do make up for lost time in future years, however. This is a bit of a spoiler but just take a look at the haul of titles won by this racket in the 1890s:

https://imgur.com/a/ZAyZOz8

Do also note that the 1899 US National Championship was scooped up by this or another Slazenger’s racket in the able hands of Malcolm Whitman.

Explains why they still had the 'Slazengers Have Won Most Wimbledons' sticker on their late 1970s woods.

 

[Sanglier]

https://imgur.com/a/QI5xT0q

The racket on the right is a little confounding. Naturally, we have a big fat double ply structure - almost certainly ash and cane. However, what is going on with those strings? It looks a little like the description of the Ayres “Special” that has the central main strings threaded through a brass tongue embedded in the wedge. The mains go from diagonal out of the wedge fixture to vertical once they hit the first cross. Any views from the racket engineers on this one?

Not saying this is what they did, but the fan-to-straight pattern transition can be achieved using a rubbery string guide, as is the case on the RoxPro SPACE-T series, which evolved from the Sp.In design.

The rubbery SPACE-T string guides are vibration dampeners. If this was not the case on the Shaw & Shrewsbury, then I do not see any advantage in this unusual layout, unless the tongue was connected to a turnbuckle in the handle for string tension adjustment (e.g., Fischer “Superform”).

I don't recall reading in these pages that Victorians were ever bothered by string vibrations, so this string guide was unlikely to have been made out of a soft polymer.

How inconsiderate of them to leave such an enigma for future racquet nerds to ponder over with no clue whatsoever!

 

[Henry Hub]

Shifting our gaze now over to the US racket scene, there are also few seismic changes in 1893.

Let’s kick off with Wright & Ditson as they are one of the few big firms to bring out new models this year.

Although Ollie Campbell is now a three-time US national champion, there’s been no racket on the market bearing his name. With a Sears Special, a Slocum and even a Beeckman knocking about, a “Campbell” racket is long overdue. Wright & Ditson get the rights and bring out this number:

https://imgur.com/a/2qKY9zm

The blurb is interesting as much for what is left unsaid as for what is included. The racket is based on the one used by Ollie to win the 1892 National Championships. Although Campbell used a Sears Special for the 1890 and 1891 seasons, I think the racket he used at Newport in 1892 was an entirely new one. Otherwise, W&D would continue to just boast about the champion using the Sears Special rather than producing a new model. This would mean that, unlike 75% of the Newport field, Campbell did not use a Sears Special in 1892.

Moreover, I presume that his 1892 title-winning racket could not have been one produced by another US manufacturer. The writs would have come thick and fast if the “Campbell” was a facsimile of a Peck and Snyder or Horsman racket, not least because W&D boast about its origin as being a copy of another firm’s product.

So my guess is that, during his time in England, Campbell did a bit of a Supermarket Sweep around London sports shops and bought a stack of rackets for his return journey. He then used his favourite English stick to win at Newport and tapped up George Wright afterwards to make some copies.

What racket could this be based on? Genuine question - I have no clue. Most likely it was a Slazenger, an Ayres or possibly a Tate. Maybe something will come up as we go - if so, I’ll do a cheeky edit and pretend I knew all along.

 

[Henry Hub]

Anyway, according to the marketing puff there is this matter of a “reinforced throat”. However there doesn’t seem to be anything immediately obvious by way of reinforcement in the picture. There’s no binding around the wedge like Ayres’s old “Hercules” or thicker shoulders like Jefferies’s “Ye Tennis”, among others.

So it’s stab in the dark time again. One possibility is that we are looking at additional screws being shoved through the frame and into the wedge (market standard is 1-2 so maybe there’s 3 or 4 drilled in).

Another possibility is that there is a layer across the top of the wedge that runs into the bottom of the hoop. Again who knows if this is just down to the draftsman’s pen but are there small ridges where the strings meet the wedge below?

https://imgur.com/a/WAfTi0T

 

[Henry Hub]

The Sears Special is still the biggest-selling racket of the day in the US. As mentioned above, 75% (60 of approximately 80 players) of the field at the men’s singles in Newport used this racket in 1892. W&D boast that this model outsells the aggregate of all other premium frames in the US and Canada.

https://imgur.com/a/9Ooej6e

Note the checkered handle (though this is also available with a cork handle) and the three waves and three dots logo.

 

[Henry Hub]

Wright & Ditson are not done yet. They trumpet a brand new version of their “Pettit” racket, named after the acclaimed real tennis champion of the world, tennis pro and Newport groundskeeper.

This is all well and good from an advertising perspective but, from a look of the evolution of the racket from 1890, it hasn’t changed one iota.

https://imgur.com/a/O29UJDg

There is a weird thing in the pictures that I hadn’t noticed before though. The legs of the racket that run down from the hoop to the butt of the frame are usually the widest part of the handle before you get to the flake that builds out the grip. However if you look at the pictures, there is a layer on the outside of the legs that runs most of the way up the wedge.

The “Campbell” doesn’t have this (so this isn’t how the throat is reinforced in that racket) and maybe this is all just the draftsman off on a frolic of his own. However, I thought it worth noting just in case anyone had any views.

Back onto yet another sidetrack and here is a photo of Thomas Pettit in his dotage at Newport.

https://imgur.com/a/BYuoT9m

The interchangeably named Pettitt/Pettit was the leading pro in the US. We have seen accounts of his matches against the Irishman George Kerr from Kerr himself. He played Sears in exhibitions over the 1880s and regularly ran the 7-time champion close. He was also famous for taking on challenges in the real tennis arena, such as this celebrated anecdote about the soda bottle.

https://imgur.com/a/f6XL8cD

 

[Sanglier]

Back onto yet another sidetrack and here is a photo of Thomas Pettit in his dotage at Newport.

https://imgur.com/a/BYuoT9m

The interchangeably named Pettitt/Pettit was the leading pro in the US. We have seen accounts of his matches against the Irishman George Kerr from Kerr himself. He played Sears in exhibitions over the 1880s and regularly ran the 7-time champion close. He was also famous for taking on challenges in the real tennis arena, such as this celebrated anecdote about the soda bottle.

https://imgur.com/a/f6XL8cD

So this was Roddick’s mistake then, he should have gone with a soda bottle!

Racquet vs frying pan.

 

[Henry Hub]

Filling out the rest of the W&D line for 1893 are the “Country Club”, the “Longwood”, the “Hub”, the “Surprise” and the “Star”. Of these, the “Country Club” and “Hub” are new models, the former sporting an ebonised wedge and checkered handle and the latter a mahogany wedge.

All of these model names adorn Wright & Ditson rackets of various designs over the next 20-30 years plus.

https://imgur.com/a/2Tg0fYA

The Wright & Ditson annual guide also contains an ad for Taylor’s net posts. Now, I have steered clear to date of including any marketing materials for posts on the grounds that occasionally you can have too much of a good thing (am I right, yeah?).

However, this illustration is helpful in providing context to EG Meers’s description of American net posts back in 1889. Note the winding mechanism at the top of the posts and the ground clearance that you could probably drive a 60s sports car under.

https://imgur.com/a/j8X0l9D

 

[Henry Hub]

So this was Roddick’s mistake then, he should have gone with a soda bottle!

Racquet vs frying pan.

Or indeed with a racket in each hand!

https://imgur.com/a/26dPS1c

https://imgur.com/a/1qN7PHW

 

[Henry Hub]

Moving on to Spalding and it’s same old, same old.

https://imgur.com/a/HzpnXAF

The “Slocum” is the most versatile of their range. This racket, first introduced in Spring 1888, is available in Tournament, Special, regular and Jr forms. It’s odd that they only reference Slocum’s national title win in 1889 and not 1888 too - Hank would within his rights to be rather cheesed off with this.

 

[Henry Hub]

The link above also contains many of the Peck & Snyder rackets of 1893.

The “Franklin” is an 1885 flat topped hangover. It is probably being phased out in preference to the modern oval design. However it would be worth vastly more today than any of the other rackets so it would have been $6.50 well spent on the top of the line model.

The “Beeckman” is the old racket that every top male player lined up to praise back in the 1880s.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/really-ancient-history.246089/post-18061116

Here are a few more ads from Campbell’s “The Game of Lawn Tennis and How to Play It”.

https://imgur.com/a/iQWycz3

The range includes such other familiar names as the “Staten Island” and “St George”. The “Hobart All-Comers” I think is a new one and luckily for us it is pictured. It has a checkered handle and oval head but is otherwise fairly unremarkable, suggesting that the value is in the type of gut used in the stringbed.

 

[Henry Hub]

Mopping up the back markers now. Here’s Hinrichs and Co (late CFA Hinrichs), still fighting the good fight in terms of their tennis offering.

https://imgur.com/a/pIH0UIV

By the way, CFA Hinrichs is behind the first US tennis advert I have found, though this aside in American Cricketer from August 1877 about E. Clarke of Germantown, Philadelphia, comes close.

https://imgur.com/a/AsDu8Di

Wonderfully, the “Germantown ground” that is referred to above is the selfsame Germantown Cricket Club upon which the French Davis Cup captain cast such devastating shade in 1926 (“charming clubhouse, ordinary locker room, impossible food”).

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/really-ancient-history.246089/post-18391908

 

[Henry Hub]

Finally, Horsman announces the release of his new “Tuxedo” racket in 1893.

https://imgur.com/a/hKyT9uW

There’s expensive mahogany aplenty in the wedge, handle and butt. More of interest is that the handle is bound up with twine. My sense is that this is a novelty, players themselves usually modding the handle rather than it being so offered ex-works.

What does catch the eye is the patent stringing that provides extra oomph on shots. I have my copy of Kuebler beside me and there’s nothing in there on this patent. A quick Espacenet search for Horsman patents up to 1893 also throws up no results. So if anyone is any the wiser, it would be great to learn what this is all about.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Finally, Horsman announces the release of his new “Tuxedo” racket in 1893.

https://imgur.com/a/hKyT9uW

There’s expensive mahogany aplenty in the wedge, handle and butt. More of interest is that the handle is bound up with twine. My sense is that this is a novelty, players themselves usually modding the handle rather than it being so offered ex-works.

What does catch the eye is the patent stringing that provides extra oomph on shots. I have my copy of Kuebler beside me and there’s nothing in there on this patent. A quick Espacenet search for Horsman patents up to 1893 also throws up no results. So if anyone is any the wiser, it would be great to learn what this is all about.

I would wonder what the handles of baseball bats were like in those days, which could be the inspiration for twine wrapping. It was well established for cricket bats.

And I wonder if 'patent stringing' refers to varnished strings, like patent leather. We know that locking the strings in place was seen as a benefit in those days.

 

[Henry Hub]

So what does 1893 have in store for us? Hopefully a number of very pithy summaries of the main tournaments, some fun anecdotes and then we steam on to 1894, right?

I would love to think so but suspect concision is not one of my natural attributes. Maybe they should charge per word on this website.

What teasers can be given for the year?

Well, after years of foul weather, the gods smile on the UK in 1893, with glorious sunshine pretty much from Easter until Eastbourne. Scrabbling around for something else to complain about with the weather finally playing ball, the British alight upon the sun-baked courts. It is a miserable year for baseliners so everyone adopts a serve and volley game like it’s Wimbledon a century later.

The big names largely stay the same, though one top player finally fulfils their potential. Like in 1892, we will see the return of an ex-champion to the scene.

The handicap controversy rumbles on in the UK, with yet another methodology thrown into the mix.

In the US, there are new champions on both the men’s and ladies’ sides, the former being the darkest of dark horses.

And I’m sure there’ll be lots of good stuff about ball-boys’ misbehaviour, demanding tennis parents, misunderstandings between players and so on along the way.

 

[Henry Hub]

We start with the trench warfare that is the choice of a handicapping system. Let’s sum up how we find ourselves where we are as dawn rises on a New Year.

We started off with a first to 15 scoring system, courtesy of Wingfield’s co-option of rackets scoring for Sphairistike. It did not lend itself to handicap matches because only the winner of the previous point could score towards the 15 point objective.

As James Dwight remarked, in a mismatched contest, a run of 15 points was not unusual.

 

[Henry Hub]

Courtesy of Messrs Jones and Marshall, the game inherited the real tennis scoring rules which became set in stone once Wimbledon took off.

Real tennis rules work well for handicapping as players can give their opponents leads or put themselves a certain number of points behind 0 in each or specific games, ie owing half 15 would mean the handicapped player in alternate games would need to win a point just to get to love.

A typical handicap phrase would be something like Mrs Jones owes Miss Smith 30 for a bisque, meaning Jones would start at minus 30 each game but would have a bisque each set in return.

So what was a bisque? This troublesome creature was essentially a freebie or Mulligan, which could be used at any time other than during a point or by a server after they missed the first delivery.

The bisque was offensive to mathematical tennis legislators as it had a fluctuating value, being worth more or less depending on when it was used.

 

[Henry Hub]

The southern and Scottish members of the LTA resolved that the bisque had to go.

In an effort to achieve this, they concocted a system of “quarters”. This meant that a player could be given odds of, say, a quarter of 15, meaning he would start at 15-0 up in the 1st game of every 4 successive games.

Odds of half 15 (every other game of a set of 4) and 3/4 of 15 (you can do the maths) and the same for 30 and 40 were on offer to balance the sides, as well as permitting odds to be owed as well as given (see above).

For, say, half 30, the full 30 point tariff was owed or given in the relevant game(s) and in the others a tariff of 15 would apply.

The Northern representatives and some black sheep down south point blank refused to accept the quarters system, defeating LTA motions to adopt it but also failing to reinstate the bisque. It was criticised as being too complicated.

 

[Henry Hub]

Meanwhile, a different system was proving popular with two very different ends of the tennis spectrum. The louche tennis aristos of Cannes and the non-nonsense, scientifically minded Scottish clubs adopted a method which was essentially a tie-break on a grand scale. If a normal tie-break is to 7 and a “champion” tie-break is to 10, the mind boggles at the superlatives that the modern tennis marketing machine would have attached to tie-breaks to 72 (Cannes) or 100 (Scotland).

Naturally, the handicap worked by giving the weaker player a big head-start. The trouble with it was that players generally lose count of the score within a game, let alone having to cope with numbers like 47-29.

 

[Henry Hub]

To try to cut the Gordian Knot between the defenders of the bisque and the quarters evangelists (nobody taking the 100- or 72-up system seriously apart from the Scots), WH Collins and Copson Peake developed what they humbly called the “Perfect” system but which everyone else referred to as the Collins Peake scoring method.

This was essentially a set of tie breaks to 21 or 14, depending on which revision of the rather less than “Perfect” system you were looking at. The architects included a system of odds that involved giving a lead of a set number of points to one or the other player.

It was used in Germany and got a trial run at the odd minor event in England but was almost immediately discounted as a credible alternative.

 

[Henry Hub]

And so we find ourselves in January 1893 in practically the same place as we were a few years before - with a schism in the LTA that causes great consternation among LTA representatives, referees and sports journalists but which practically nobody else in the tennis diaspora could give the remotest toss about.

This is particularly the case with the Americans (with the exception of Dr James Dwight), most of whom can’t fathom why you’d want to allow your weaker opponent a better chance of beating you.

 

[Henry Hub]

Which is why it is such a surprise in January that the defenders of the bisque propose a new system, closely aligned to the despised quarters method.

It is a system of sixths (of 15, 30 or 40) and works on the same basis as the quarters but on sets of 6 successive games.

So odds of 1/6 of 15 is a 1 point head start for the beneficiary in the second game of each 6-game run.

2/6 of 15 means the handicap applies in the 2nd and 4th games.

3/6 of 15 means the handicap applies in the 2nd, 4th and 6th games.

4/6 of 15 means the handicap applies in the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th games.

Finally, 5/6 of 15 means the handicap applies in every game apart from the 1st.

It is intended to create a more finely nuanced structure of handicapping that can discriminate between players of near equal ability, especially those at the lower end of the talent scale.

 

[Henry Hub]

Now I go into detail about this because it is (spoiler alert) eventually adopted by the LTA and therefore by European tennis more broadly. It is used for the guts of a century - first in the above form as it is intended and then as an official ranking of players.

When I was first playing, I was ranked under the Byzantine LTA rating structure. This started at +40, then went to +30/3 and +30.

If you got past that stage (and my junior days were spent very much in the +30/3 doldrums), you had to fight up through the echelons of +15/5, 15/4,15/3, 15/2, 15/1 and 15 before you got to the promised land of the county junior levels of +4/6, +2/6 and scratch.

The very best were ranked -2/6, -4/6 and then you were into the UK’s top 20.

Now, I was never great at maths but even I knew that this was a bizarre numbering system. However, this sixths system was of course its origin - and I believe that an even more granular sixths system may still be used in France?

 

[Grafil Injection]

I can sort of understand why these handicap systems would want to make each game in a match competitive, but was there ever a simpler system where the better player just started each set 1, 2 or 3 games down for example?

 

[Henry Hub]

I have done a bit of digging and that was never used in any tournament I have records of. Nor is it ever discussed as an alternative method for handicapping. Now, I wonder if that’s because it was considered too generous (ie even giving their opponent a 15, 30 or 40 head start, the handicapped players still has a chance in each game) or maybe not generous enough (like the rackets scoring problem, even if one player is given a 3 game lead, both players compete on equal terms in the following games and it would be a formality of a comeback for the superior of the two).

I suspect the main reason though is that these handicaps had to be nuanced enough to allow all competitors in an event to have a handicap that would apply throughout the competition, ie it had to apply on a differential basis against other handicapped players. This was known as the question of differential odds and it is an absolute conundrum for anyone as bad at mathematics as I. So if you had player A receiving 3 games vs the best in the draw and he came up against player B who received 1 from the same best player, would it just be a case of setting off the two such that A would receive 2 games from B? Well, if the table of differential odds for the sixths system was anything to go by, the answer would be no. It’s all rather bewildering.

https://imgur.com/a/Q4QitcR

Other handicaps suggested (in the 1870s at least) were that the better player be only allowed to play into one side of the court (the death of this handicap was one of the reasons why the centre line through the service box no longer extends to the baseline) and that a cord be stretched across the court above the net at a height of 7ft, with the better player having to hit all their shots over the cord. Later, there is the variant of handicaps for veterans, which increased the handicap by an escalating amount the further over 40 they were (the “age for weight” method).

The best way of dealing with wild variations in standard was to subdivide the entrants into different classes (ie a ranking-based competition), which avoided the issues encountered by this poor American, who went in for a Mexican tournament owing 60 (win 5 points to get to 0) and giving up to 40 in each game.

https://imgur.com/a/aaeNv90

 

[Henry Hub]

At the end of January 1893, the LTA annual meeting is held and the sixths system is proposed by the Lancashire LTA representative JG Brown, seconded by the inexplicably 2-time All-England Mixed Doubles champ JC Kay (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/really-ancient-history.246089/post-18429049 ).

WH Collins shows himself to be a man whose head has dominion over his heart, readily supporting the proposed challenger to his quarters and “Perfect” systems.

The proposal however meets stiff resistance in the persons of Harry Scrivener (at this point of the Oxford University LTC but a man destined for great things in tennis administration) and, surprisingly, Nicholas Jackson of Pastime, who argues that there has been no chance to test the system. Jackson has had the hump with the Northern representatives for years, ever since they admitted that they would fight “tooth and nail” to defeat his favoured quarters method.

Eventually, the matter is put to a vote and fails to meet the required threshold.

This lets much of the air out of the meeting and so our friend Horncastle (see above) has all sorts of difficulty holding the attention of the delegates on his topic of the conduct of club matches. Pastime captured the mood brilliantly with its final sentence:

https://imgur.com/a/PZAEed5

 

[Casey 1988]

I would wonder what the handles of baseball bats were like in those days, which could be the inspiration for twine wrapping. It was well established for cricket bats.

And I wonder if 'patent stringing' refers to varnished strings, like patent leather. We know that locking the strings in place was seen as a benefit in those days.

MLB and most other leagues actually ban using a grip on the bat in this era until the 1930's and even then, most players did not do this tape or leather wrap on grip until the 1940's after WWII.

 

[Henry Hub]

With no approval of the sixths system, the unsatisfactory situation continues in the UK of having the bisque, quarters and sixths systems rather unhappily co-existing.

Rather than dwelling on this, let’s head for sunnier climes. And surely there are climes no sunnier in January than Australia. However, the Intercolonial (NSW vs. VIC) is held in Melbourne and the clemency of the weather leaves something to be desired. Wet courts and a howling hurricane (according to Pastime) are the welcoming committee for the NSW players, who are duly rolled by the Victorians, despite the move to grass courts from asphalt in Melbourne.

After the Intercolonial comes the state championship. Victorian players prevail across the board.

One name that goes entirely unreported is one Norman Brookes, who ends up as finalist in the handicap singles.

https://imgur.com/a/2LjB9hH

The “Mighty Brookes” may loom large in a future edition of this Odyssey.